Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council April 25, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 5 <br /> <br />Ms. Prososki stated that Elizabeth Stoltz is requesting a conditional use permit for a residential 1 <br />kennel to be located at 8370 Pleasant View Drive. She noted that the CUP up to four signatures 2 <br />noting that the requirement has been met and submitted. She stated that the applicant is 3 <br />proposing to keep three dogs as pet noting that the dogs are only outside when the owners are 4 <br />home. She stated that staff ran a check with the Police Department and found that a complaint 5 <br />was made on March 5, 2005. She stated that staff also ran a check with the St. Paul Police and 6 <br />found no complaints had been filed during the time they lived in St. Paul. She noted that it 7 <br />appears the request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Staff has received a lot of 8 <br />public comments regarding the kennel. She stated that most were concerned about the barking 9 <br />and added noise to the neighborhood. She stated that staff is reluctant to make the owner get rid 10 <br />of one of pets noting that the Planning Commission held a hearing on April 6, 2005 and 11 <br />recommended approval with the intent to review the application in six months. She stated that 12 <br />placing a time review would not be an option because Staff found, during the review of the 13 <br />application, that a time limit could not be placed on a conditional use permit. She further 14 <br />explained that the Applicant has the right to waive their rights for 90-days and did so. She noted 15 <br />that one of the residents originally against the kennel is now ok with dogs. She stated that the 16 <br />resident has been able to spend some time getting to know the dogs and no longer has a concern. 17 <br /> 18 <br />Council Member Thomas noted that it was mentioned that a review of the CUP would be an 19 <br />issue and asked what a review of the CUP application would entail and would Council’s action 20 <br />be to approve the permit. 21 <br /> 22 <br />Ms. Prososki stated that the Planning Commission asked for the review. She noted that the 23 <br />applicant is new to the neighborhood and both the Planning Commission and the neighbors 24 <br />believe that the dogs will eventually settle into the neighborhood. 25 <br /> 26 <br />Council Member Thomas asked if the City has the option to revoke the permit and are there time 27 <br />limits applied to the permit. 28 <br /> 29 <br />Director Ericson explained that City Council has the authority to revisit the conditional use 30 <br />permit. He further explained that by resolution and a public hearing, the City Council could 31 <br />revoke the permit noting that there would have to be reasonable issues and concerns to warrant 32 <br />the review. 33 <br /> 34 <br />Ms. Prososki stated that Barb and Steven Fisher, Pleasant View Drive, were unable to attend due 35 <br />to a previous commitment and provided their concerns in writing. She read the letter to Council 36 <br />noting that the Fishers are distressed that so little credence is given to the immediate neighbors 37 <br />concerns. She indicated that all of the neighbors to the immediate north, south and east have also 38 <br />expressed concerns about allowing three dogs. Mr. and Mrs. Fisher, in the letter read by Ms. 39 <br />Prososki, indicated that the dogs are kept inside most of the time but she can still hear them 40 <br />barking. Mr. and Mrs. Fisher expressed concerns that Council is making a decision based on 41 <br />their personal views versus the concerns of the current residents. They asked the Council not to 42 <br />make an arbitrary decision but to make the decision based on specific criteria. The Fishers asked 43 <br />what criteria is used and whether the Community, Council and City Staff have had the 44 <br />opportunity to review and approve the criteria. The Fishers noted that it would save on time and 45